Plenty ask if favoritism came into play

Published: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 12:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 5:14 p.m.

One of the bedrock principles of the American judicial system says that justice is blind. That means everyone is treated equally. Plenty of Davidson County residents are questioning that statement after the arrest and conviction of a Lexington lawyer and his wife on drug charges.

Bill Fritts, a well-known defense lawyer and former prosecutor, and his wife, Susan, a former victim's coordinator for the Davidson County District Attorney's Office, first came in contact with law enforcement when Lexington police officers and State Bureau of Investigation agents executed a search warrant at their home Oct. 16. They allege they found a marijuana-growing operation at the house. Seven weeks would pass before the couple was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury, he for felony possession of marijuana and she for two charges involving the sale of marijuana and one for manufacturing it. The pace of the wheels of justice quickened considerably, as they were indicted Dec. 3, arrested two days later and pleaded guilty in court the next day. Susan Fritts received a suspended sentence, and both received probation.

Sympathetic friends and colleagues may say that the Frittses were treated differently in another way, too: Most drug offenses like theirs don't merit two stories in the newspaper. However, that ignores the fact that both were involved in the legal system. Lawyers, judicial officials and law enforcement officers are held to a higher standard. They of all people know the laws and should abide by them.

In fact, the public attention brought to their case served as another form of punishment. Jim O'Neill, the Forsyth County District Attorney who prosecuted the case, wouldn't proceed until a reporter from The Dispatch appeared in the courtroom to report the proceedings. O'Neill deserves credit for making sure the crimes saw the light of day. At least that dispels the idea that people with connections can avoid public embarrassment for their crimes.

The most troubling aspect of the situation involves Susan Fritts' role. If she was only growing the marijuana for her Rheumatoid arthritis, as her husband first told officers, it would be easier to have sympathy for her. After all, some states are legalizing marijuana for medical use, and whether it should remain illegal generates debate. But the indictments say Susan Fritts sold marijuana to juveniles and even smoked it with them over an almost three-year period. Marijuana often serves as a gateway drug to harder substances. While it may have taken some time to determine her level of involvement, a quicker arrest would have ensured she didn't have the opportunity to continue selling marijuana to youngsters.

One other concern comes from a statement Judge Alexander Mendaloff III made to Bill Fritts. He said he had admired Fritts and called him a "tremendous advocate for the state." That comment indicates that perhaps a judge from another district was needed in addition to a prosecutor, which would have increased the appearance of objectivity.

Perception often takes hold more than reality. So despite the explanations from law enforcement and judicial officials about the circumstances, many people believe the Frittses received special treatment. That feeling only weakens faith in the judicial system as being impartial to all.

<p>One of the bedrock principles of the American judicial system says that justice is blind. That means everyone is treated equally. Plenty of Davidson County residents are questioning that statement after the arrest and conviction of a Lexington lawyer and his wife on drug charges.</p><p>Bill Fritts, a well-known defense lawyer and former prosecutor, and his wife, Susan, a former victim's coordinator for the Davidson County District Attorney's Office, first came in contact with law enforcement when Lexington police officers and State Bureau of Investigation agents executed a search warrant at their home Oct. 16. They allege they found a marijuana-growing operation at the house. Seven weeks would pass before the couple was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury, he for felony possession of marijuana and she for two charges involving the sale of marijuana and one for manufacturing it. The pace of the wheels of justice quickened considerably, as they were indicted Dec. 3, arrested two days later and pleaded guilty in court the next day. Susan Fritts received a suspended sentence, and both received probation.</p><p>Sympathetic friends and colleagues may say that the Frittses were treated differently in another way, too: Most drug offenses like theirs don't merit two stories in the newspaper. However, that ignores the fact that both were involved in the legal system. Lawyers, judicial officials and law enforcement officers are held to a higher standard. They of all people know the laws and should abide by them.</p><p>In fact, the public attention brought to their case served as another form of punishment. Jim O'Neill, the Forsyth County District Attorney who prosecuted the case, wouldn't proceed until a reporter from The Dispatch appeared in the courtroom to report the proceedings. O'Neill deserves credit for making sure the crimes saw the light of day. At least that dispels the idea that people with connections can avoid public embarrassment for their crimes.</p><p>The most troubling aspect of the situation involves Susan Fritts' role. If she was only growing the marijuana for her Rheumatoid arthritis, as her husband first told officers, it would be easier to have sympathy for her. After all, some states are legalizing marijuana for medical use, and whether it should remain illegal generates debate. But the indictments say Susan Fritts sold marijuana to juveniles and even smoked it with them over an almost three-year period. Marijuana often serves as a gateway drug to harder substances. While it may have taken some time to determine her level of involvement, a quicker arrest would have ensured she didn't have the opportunity to continue selling marijuana to youngsters.</p><p>One other concern comes from a statement Judge Alexander Mendaloff III made to Bill Fritts. He said he had admired Fritts and called him a "tremendous advocate for the state." That comment indicates that perhaps a judge from another district was needed in addition to a prosecutor, which would have increased the appearance of objectivity.</p><p>Perception often takes hold more than reality. So despite the explanations from law enforcement and judicial officials about the circumstances, many people believe the Frittses received special treatment. That feeling only weakens faith in the judicial system as being impartial to all.</p>